similar to: [LLVMdev] LLC Bug x86 with thread local storage

On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > Hello, > > This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk : > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 > > The workaround I found is to add this : > > Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td > =================================================================== > --- lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td

On 06/21/2010 08:21 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk : >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 >> >> The workaround I found is to add this : >> >> Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Instr64bit.td >>

On 06/22/2010 11:11 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > On 06/21/2010 08:21 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:56 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> This bug affects all LLVM versions from 2.6 to trunk : >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 >>> >>> The workaround I found is to

On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > Which one is correct ? > - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > or > - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx > or > - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > I believe this is initial exec and so from: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/tls.pdf it would be movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx > Otherwise, Is there a

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote: > >> Which one is correct ? >> - movl $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> or >> - movq $tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %rcx >> or >> - movl tm_nest_level at TPOFF, %ecx >> > > I believe this is initial exec and so from: > >

Hello Jim thanks for the reply, For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as ARM does, basically transforming add(x, imm) nodes to sub(x, -imm) with a pattern in the .td file like this: def : Pat<(add DLDREGS:$src1, imm:$src2), (SUBIWRdK DLDREGS:$src1, (imm16_neg_XFORM imm:$src2))>; Now, the typical pattern concerning additions with global addresses looks

On 25/07/12 18:21, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 25 Jul 2012, at 04:49, Paul Shortis wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> I'm considering creating an LLVM backend for a 16 bit processor and >> modelling it around the (experimental) MSP430 back end. >> >> When reviewing MSP430InstrInfo.td I see >> >> def MSP430Wrapper :

On 25/07/12 12:14, Paul Shortis wrote: > Thanks Richard, > > You're correct, they are similar. In the XCoreInstrInfo.td patterns > what I'm struggling with is why this .... > > def BL_lu10 : _FLU10< > (outs), > (ins calltarget:$target, variable_ops), > "bl $target", >

On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Hello Jim thanks for the reply, > > For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as ARM does, basically transforming add(x, imm) nodes to sub(x, -imm) with a pattern in the .td file like this: > def : Pat<(add DLDREGS:$src1, imm:$src2), > (SUBIWRdK DLDREGS:$src1, (imm16_neg_XFORM imm:$src2))>;

Thanks Jim, I've implemented the negation part successfully :) maybe the second part could be a possible feature request so others could use it aswell? 2011/4/27 Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > > > Hello Jim thanks for the reply, > > > > For normal additions with immediates I've done the same as

On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:59 PMPDT, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Aug 26, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Yuri wrote: >> On 08/26/2010 11:53, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> Could you get it to print out the instruction when it happens? >>> (just change the line above the error message to print it out to >>> errs()). >>> >>> It basically means that a pseudo

Hi, I had (naively?) expected that the instruction to move immediate to register or memory (such as MOV32mi, MOV32ri, MOV64mi32, MOV64ri, MOV64ri32) would be marked with the flag MCID::MovImm via the X86InstrInfo.td (and hence in the generated X86GenInstrInfo.inc). I do not see that to be the case. Can someone please tell me if my expectation is flawed? Is there a better/different way to

In the X86 implementation, I noticed that tglobaladdr, tconstpool, ... are wrapped using node X86Wrapper. Do you have any idea of the goal of this wrapper ? Thanks ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110211/766f942e/attachment.html>

On 25 Jul 2012, at 04:49, Paul Shortis wrote: > Hello, > > I'm considering creating an LLVM backend for a 16 bit processor and > modelling it around the (experimental) MSP430 back end. > > When reviewing MSP430InstrInfo.td I see > > def MSP430Wrapper : SDNode<"MSP430ISD::Wrapper", SDT_MSP430Wrapper>; > > and can see in MSP430ISelLowering.cpp

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:34 PMPDT, Yuri wrote: > On 08/26/2010 13:17, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>>> Insn before the error: TCRETURNri64 %RAX<kill>, 0, %RDI<kill>, >>>> %RAX<imp-def,dead>, %RDI<imp-def,dead>, %RSP<imp-use>, ... >>> >>> Odd. I thought TCReturn was being lowered. At any rate can you >>> file a bug

Hi, I've been hitting my head to wall two days now. This is practically my first contact with InstrInfo.td files. Is there any tutorial how to make this kind of stuff? Or should I just keep on studying Sparc and other backends? So I added new intrinsic to llvm/include/llvm/TCEInstrinsics.td: def int_tce_customop : Intrinsic<[llvm_void_ty, llvm_ptr_ty, llvm_vararg_ty], [],

Hello, I'm considering creating an LLVM backend for a 16 bit processor and modelling it around the (experimental) MSP430 back end. When reviewing MSP430InstrInfo.td I see def MSP430Wrapper : SDNode<"MSP430ISD::Wrapper", SDT_MSP430Wrapper>; and can see in MSP430ISelLowering.cpp that ISD::GlobalAddress: ISD::BlockAddress: ISD::ExternalSymbol all get lowered to

Hi, Apologies this is a bit lengthy. TLDR: I'm using Dragonegg + LLVM 3.2 and uClibc, and am finding that using the Fast register allocator (i.e. -optimize-regalloc=0) causes miscompilation of setsockopt calls (5-arg system calls). The problem doesn't happen with the default register allocation path selected. It can be worked around by manually simplifying the system call setup

Is there a way to define a multi-class pattern in tablegen? Thanks, Micah Villmow Systems Engineer Advanced Technology & Performance Advanced Micro Devices Inc. S1-609 One AMD Place Sunnyvale, CA. 94085 P: 408-749-3966 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am trying to categorize the machine instructions based on associated static (i.e., as encoded in .td file) machine description and the corresponding APIs. I would like to perform appropriate actions based on the kind of instruction in a tool that I am working on. For example, I'd like to distinguish between memop instructions involving immediate vs register. While it appears that I would be